We all know the dirty little democrat party secret

HARRY BELAFONTE'S RACISM

President Bush has, throughout his administration, appointed many black folks to many prominent positions. It was George W. Bush that nominated the first black secretary of state. It was also this president that nominated the first black female secretary of state. There are also other people of color in the administration.

Naturally, those on the leftist fringe are steamed about this. To them, black Republicans are 'sellouts' or 'Uncle Toms.' Unless you're a liberal Democrat, equal opportunity and advancement and civil rights and all of that doesn't matter. So knowing that, today we have a story from Harry Belafonte, the singer. He's quite upset that there are black people working for George Bush. Speaking at a civil rights march Saturday in Atlanta, he called them 'black tyrants.'

That says it all. Now we know Harry Belafonte is a racist. The so-called civil rights establishment doesn't care one bit about civil rights. It's all about bashing George Bush and advancing the cause of victimhood.

Also, at the same rally, many people spoke, including prominent Democrats who still insist that the president stole the last two elections. Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and John Conyers were all there with their tinfoil hats on.

And the Democratic Party still wonders why it's out of power.

Hey, nice lie list! Where'd you steal it from?

Sorry to inform you, but placing a few token blacks in positions does not absolve the generally racially hostile policies of the Republican Party. Similarly, because Mr. Belafante does not agree with the character of the blacks that he views as tyrannical that are strategically placed in these positions for the purpose of presenting a non-racist ideology in an administration that has no concern for the well being of minorities does not automatically make him racist. Your simplistic equation ending with the conclusion that this is a "Democratic Party Secret" illustrates your lack of insight. Nice try, but please before you attempt to perform an analysis of complex matter, gather more than your elementary school level logic. Otherwise, you publicly embarrass yourself by placing your transparent lack of sophisticated thought on the internet. Try again.

Daniel Summer could you give examples of this so-called "generally racially hostile policies of the Republican Party" ?

Certainly, Copper. I will outline specific ideological and practical examples that immediately come to mind and support my contention that the Republican Party is, in fact, as I described in my previous posting. I have highlighted several different situations that directly address the heart of your question.

The broadest manner in which the policies of the Republican Party are racially hostile is by the party’s tendency to ignore the historical ramifications of inequality and the imperatives of race in our nation. This is elemental to the Republican stance as it is the foundation for the party’s general opposition to policies that benefit minorities and offer opportunities of upward mobility to those suffering from the lasting effects of discrimination. Affirmative action is a classic example of such a program opposed by Republicans. Often, the Republican Party espouses that it desperately wishes to end “special treatment” and that it desires equality for all. To that end, it would abolish such programs which, by the logic proffered, somehow promote unfairness and inequality. Pseudo-supportive arguments champion that minorities are just as capable as everyone else and should, like all others, be left to their own devices to rise or fall on their own merits abound. This socio-political contention, while noble in its grandstanding, is dishonest in its selective reasoning, is utopic and ignores harsh factual realities. It flies in the face of historical differences of opportunity, is blind to the differences in education, unemployment, wealth, class, incarceration rates and poverty existing in communities of minorities. Despite the advantages that non-minorities have in all of the above categories, Republicans give yelps of “reverse racism”. Unfortunately, the party refuses in general to honestly address these issues as realities by ignoring them altogether, placing blame on individuals as opposed to viewing the plight of racial minorities in context as broad social problems that extend far beyond the individual or the immediate family. The very notion that this society has not and does not treat minorities the same as everyone else is often dismissed and seems to escape the Republican mindset. The very notion that all things are not equal never comes to mind. But it is strategically dishonest to pretend that there is little or no institutionalized discrimination, particularly when that discrimination does not affect you. The GOP offers not addressing the matter as its only solution. Bad plan. Positive social change has never resulted from such laizee faire approaches. In issues of human relations, “the market” is not self-correcting. After all, one must consider the conditions and purposes for which the policies were originally instituted and whether or not they have been achieved resolution or relief. The statistics tell a story about the state of minorities vs. larger society. While the Democratic Party is imperfect to say the least, the party at least acknowledges the issues. The “level playing field” is a twentieth century Horatio Alger myth that the Republican Party simply refuses to abandon because it is avoids the complexities inherent in racial politics by denial. It pretends that the playing field is level. Those who know better will never be fooled by the GOP’s blind omissions and sleight of hand.

A second example of the hostile policies of the Republican party with regard to minority relations exists in the arenas of the Republican approach to the abuse of blacks and Latinos by the police and by those who commit hate crimes against minorities. Republicans have openly squandered silver-platter opportunities to demonstrate that they view minorities as members of society who deserve to be afforded protection from such atrocities. But again, by refusing to acknowledge the abuses, or offer or support the solutions presented to them, Republicans continue to pretend that the situations do not exist or are isolated events. President George W. Bush himself opposed hate crimes legislation brought about by the efforts of the grieving daughter of James Byrd Jr, a black man dragged to his death on the back of a pickup truck while he was the Governor of Texas in a racially motivated murder. This is symbolic of the Republican agenda when it comes to race relations. It points to the lack of value that Republicans place on minorities. What can be viewed as a golden opportunity to take a stand against social injustice resulted into just another Republican following the party line by turning a blind eye to that which is oppressive to others. The expansion of good faith exceptions for police officers, notorious for their abuses in the inner city and elsewhere, are also frequently championed by Republican administrations, politicians and policies. As you can see, to acknowledge that the issues are real simply escapes the GOP.

A third manner in which the Republican Party’s platforms are hostile and insensitive is related to both race and class. In essence, poverty has a racial element. The fact is that minorities are disproportionately poor. As such, policies regarding programs that assist the poor have racial implications that disproportionably affect minorities. While 2/3 of the individuals who receive public assistance are white women, stereotypes abound regarding the dependence of racial minorities on these programs. Having worked in the social services, I can assure you that the Reaganeque depiction of the “Cadillac driving welfare queen” living a comfortable life of leisure and luxury on the dole is a far rarer occurrence than President Reagan or the Republican Party would to admit. But this is how Republicans repeatedly characterize minorities. Though these caracatures of black women and black families by Republicans Daniel Moynihan and Ronald Reagan are gross misrepresentations, they nevertheless served thier purposes as a rationale for President Reagan’s attacks on public assistance and nutrition-oriented school lunch programs and damaged the social standing of blacks in society as purposely unmotivated and dependent upon such. But again, minorities are disproportionately poor. As such, when these programs are attacked, minorities are attacked in disproportionate numbers. Couple this with the fact the opposition of Republicans to raise the minimum wage. Again, minorities are over represented in these lower paying private sector jobs. So at the same time that Republicans attack Affirmative Action and similar programs, they are also opposing the inflation of wages for disproportionately poor minorities while simultaneously seeking to eliminate social service programs upon which minorities disproportionably depend for their survival, food and shelter. Add that to the previous paragraph regarding the support of the police who disproportionately abuse them and the lack of support for victims of racial and police attacks. Are you beginning to see why my comment was made that perceives the Republican Party’s political approach to minorities is “hostile” in its policies?

Bear in mind that it was the Republican Party that was up in arms about the apology Bill Clinton wished to issue for the enslavement of blacks. The political climate in the late 1990s when this was at issue was often not one of political correctness. In retrospect, this apology for slavery was benign, did not promise reparations of any kind and did not cost the taxpayers a dime, but was vehemently and loudly opposed by members of the GOP, which at the time included among its members former segregationist politician Strom Thurmond. The question is, why? Didn’t they view this institution as a great evil in our society that has caused irreparable social damage to all? Was not this apology long overdue? Historical black and white archival interview footage demonstrates that the civil rights movement itself was roundly opposed by the Republican Party, most notably and loudly by the ever-sanctimonious and incharitable religious right. With regard to the latter, this “moral majority” and the attitudes expressed presently by those seem to hold over in their approach to issues of race from the 1950s era. If anything, the “Party of Lincoln” should have considered what Lincoln himself would have done under the circumstances.

While not a part of the official stance of the Republican policy, listen for yourself to the hypocrisy and ignorance that passes as Republican conservatism. You will hear it in the likes of Limbaugh and other notables who spout racist slurs and grandiose, self-righteous narcissistic idiocy. Is it any wonder that the GOP fails to attract more than a handful of African Americans? Yet I have seen many instances in which Republicans scratch their heads, wondering why they have almost no support among blacks.

While lengthy, I hope that this clarifies my comment as to what constitutes what I described as the generally racially hostile political and social policies of the Republican Party. I welcome your comments, criticisms, rebuttals and responses.

Daniel Summer I applaud you for your lengthy response. I will get back to it soon (soon as I have a little time) with some questions and my opinion. However, a quick question here in reference to the lynching of Mr. Byrd and your claim that it was "Republican" agenda to prevent from hate-crime laws to take effect.
May I remind you that the governor who overtook Mr. Bush's unexpired term in Texas was ALSO a Republican and that this law passed under his governing?

"This is symbolic of the Republican agenda when it comes to race relations."

Note that my statement that it is not my claim that there was a “Republican agenda to prevent hate crimes legislation from being passed”. That is your statement. Specifically, I articulated that the Byrd case typified the Republican direction on matters of race. And I will demonstrate that it does. In response to your question, I pointed to hate crimes legislation as but one facet of race relations of which Republicans tend to be generally unsupportive and hostile. The above statement should be taken in the context of the paragraph in which it was written, not in isolation or with any change in the actual statement itself.

While I am aware of the ultimate fate of the bill, you should look beyond its passage and the political party of Governor at the time, because upon examination there is a much more telling feature regarding Republican sentiment on the matter within that deserves analysis. But as you will see, your very example of the passage of the bill proves my point. Before you hail the passage of that legislation as evidence of the existence of broad Republican concern, as a proper antithesis to my contention, consider the following:

1. When the state bill passed in the Texas Senate, all 10 votes that opposed the bill were Republicans.

2. In the Texas House, home to a Democratic majority, the vote went primarily along party lines, with Republicans largely opposing the legislation. The vote was 87 to 60.

3. George W. Bush opposed the original Texas bill and was intent on preventing it from becoming law. When he became the President of the United States, he openly threatened to veto similar legislation in the White House at the Federal level and was supported by the overwhelming majority Republicans, who vocalized their support of his position.

4. The Federal version of the legislation did not become law until President Obama signed it two months ago. Even then, the majority of Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted against it.

See a pattern here? Now reread my statement. That is precisely my point.

Even the existence of a rare Republican vote for meaningful hate crimes legislation does not invalidate the earlier statement, nor does it affect the evidence of the overwhelming prevailing party line on the issue. To the contrary, the support for such by Republicans has consistently been absent or minor by comparison to their Democratic counterparts-- again, just one of many symptoms indicative of a systemically more racially hostile political orientation overall as a rule for the GOP. This is just one part of the whole that I described. Coupled with the other information I provided, this accurately reflects the broader Republican party sentiment. I wrote that there was generally a “lack of support for victims of racial and police attacks” on the part of Republicans.

If we assume that a compassionate Republican of substance who supports the bill exists within Rick Perry, it is possible to find instances of practically anything in the universe of politics (Lieberman, Olympia Snowe, etc.). But they are the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Republicans in support of such legislation simply do not symbolize conventional party politics. It is simply fact. Those who vote otherwise are a departure from the norm. George W. Bush eloquently and succinctly articulated a position representative of the party policy on several occasions and the votes of his Republican cohorts consistently bear this out. Now I have a question regarding Rick Perry. Is it your contention that the passage of the bill “under his governing” really mean that Republicans supported it in the face of their voting against it? How so?

In closing, I often, I see the degradation of these topics into name calling, etc. I commend you for your demeanor. Personally, I have genuine respect for the other side, even though I disagree with your logic/conclusions. I look forward to your answer and critical analysis to the above question and further intelligent discussion with you. I am genuinely interested in the insight that your reasoning can provide. Thanks for your applause and it is reciprocated in kind.

Thank you, sir. I abhor namecalling because every discussion is effectively killed when doing so. Besides, in a true democracy every subject should be "discussable".

I must admit that the Republican agenda is much influenced by religious, conservative organization's sentiments. But one has to look at the origin of their concern. Not every so-called "progress" means improvement. And, it also largely depends on people's conviction and perspective in life. In this particular case I would count myself with the minority of Republicans who supported this law.

No obviously this bill wasn't supported by the majority of Republicans. I must say I don't live in the U.S. so I am not all that into local (per State) bills and laws occuring there. This particular case just caught my attention.

I will, as said in my previous post, respond to your previous post because there are more points that I feel is worth a discussion in there. (Unfortunately too busy still right now, but I will respond).